Have you noticed the change in rhetoric re: the Times Square dud bomb?

The talk Saturday night and into Sunday morning, from Mayor Bloomberg to media pundits, was that bomb was unprofessional and probably would have done no serious damage to property or life. Indeed, the SUV probably would've been the only thing damaged and the bomb probably would not have even exploded.

Now that they've tied it to foreign and domestic terrorists, suddenly the bomb would have caused considerable damage to life and property had it been successfully detonated. Of course this change in language is coming from the right.

perteck us!1!!!"

Funny, cuz my first thought was that it was some deranged and brain-dead teabagger.

As "unprofessional" as that might be, it would have blown the shit out of a bunch of stuff.

The tanks' valves were closed. Which means they would have had to wait for the car to be fully engulfed in flames -- for a considerable period of time -- before they heated up enough to explode. Even if a hole was shot in them, they wouldn't explode. They're designed NOT to. There was no triggering mechanism that would have made those tanks explode in such a way as to cause any serious damage. That is why they were initially calling the job "amateurish." Gasoline won't explode, but gasoline vapors will. Propane tanks won't explode unless you rig them to do so, and it doesn't sound as if these tanks were anything but normal propane tanks. It's silly to think that, even if the SUV has burst into flames, that the NYFD would not have the thing doused in short order...they wouldn't just leave it there burning, wether or not they knew what was in the back seat.

.

it was a different story.

"..a very lethal device..." "...a hurt locker..." "...Jack Bauer..."

See how that works?

that it was a right wing domestic terror even originally.